As you can see, the relative sizes of the continents are about the same as they are now, but there is substantially less sea water--almost no oceans at all in the northern hemisphere. This explains why people in canoes could row across the ocean--because it was really just a big lake.

It is interesting to observe in 3D format, as we are not accustomed to using the old mariner map projections.

Kent wrote:Approximately how large was the Earth then as compared to now? And is the expansion rate constant? Or are these questions answered in the next paper?

The circumference is approximate 20,000 miles, some 5,000 miles smaller than it is today. I did not get into that level of detail, but no, the expansion rate is not constant. It jumps is steps (discrete units), initially a lot of big increments and then slows down to fewer, smaller ones. It is basically the way an expanding sphere works. The larger the sphere gets, the more distributed the motion becomes.

The first draft of Part V is with the proofreaders now, except one section that I am doing a large update on, because of an accidental discovery made by DJChrisMac when we were trying to work out some map stuff.

Expansion is coordinate space (in the material sector) corresponds with a retraction in coordinate time (in the cosmic sector), correct? So, if the Earth is expanding what exactly is happening in the cosmic sector? I know there's something I'm missing, particularly how physical matter is represented in the cosmic sector.

daniel wrote:The circumference is approximate 20,000 miles, some 5,000 miles smaller than it is today. I did not get into that level of detail, but no, the expansion rate is not constant. It jumps is steps (discrete units), initially a lot of big increments and then slows down to fewer, smaller ones. It is basically the way an expanding sphere works. The larger the sphere gets, the more distributed the motion becomes.

The first draft of Part V is with the proofreaders now, except one section that I am doing a large update on, because of an accidental discovery made by DJChrisMac when we were trying to work out some map stuff.

Anybody know the ancient Lemurian for, "ho, ho, ho?"

Yeah sorry about that, the delay is my fault but it was one of those "hiding right in front of you the whole time" moments that required more research to confirm it.

Interesting that you mention the distribution of motion, it got me thinking as I was recently having fun at work playing the following with a programmer colleague:

the aim of the game is simple. try to guess how correlated the two variables in a scatter plot are. the closer your guess is to the true correlation, the better.

your guess should be between zero and one, where zero is no correlation and one is perfect correlation. no negative correlations are used in the game. here are some examples:
Correlation examples

guess the correlation is a game with a purpose. this means, while it aims to be entertaining, data on the guesses is collected and used to analyse how we perceive correlations in scatter plots. so the more people that play, the more data is generated!

rules

guess within 0.05 of the true correlation: +1 life and +5 coins
guess within 0.10 of the true correlation: +1 coin
guess within >0.10 of the true correlation: -1 life

you will also receive bonus coins if you make good guesses in a row!

about me

i'm a phd student studying bioinformatics at the university of cambridge and the european bioinformatics institute. this game is a side project to feed one of my many day-to-day curiosities.
i'm always grateful for suggestions and happy to answer questions about the game or how the data will be used. so tweet me at @omarwagih or email me.

So anyway I played the game for a while and before long was quite good at it, racking up a score of 113, but what quickly became effortless was the ability to take a glance at a random scatter of dots and estimate the correlation. Your comment on the distribution of motion is shown quite well here I think, with a perfect correlation of 1 = unity (all land and no ocean) but not only that, it made me go back to a picture I had found when helping out with some research:

It reminds me of the guess the correlation game, look at the land mass and imagine the square picture is the globe back then folded out into 2d, with a lot less water and Atlantis and Terra Australis sitting in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. I'd say this configuration was a correlation of roughly R = 0.90 going by the examples above.

Now, expand the earth by a good 5000 miles or so, keeping the majority of the land masses the same size, then fill in the new space with a larger ocean and imagine not a pole flip (magnetic maybe) but the spinning top of Tiamat in orbit now being larger and the continents moving into their current position as the motion of a larger spinning sphere with more water distributes into the current configurement:

The Gall Peters projection map above also shows the detail under the oceans and if you look at the large crack of the mid-atlantic ridge, where the earth has clearly expanded and grown, and compare "Atlantis" from where it was to where it currently sits, you can almost imagine the planet splitting as indicated and this land mass moving north along the flume-like expansion crack to the north pole as the rest of the continents settled into place, with the newly expanded Tiamat now balanced to take into account the different motion of a larger geoid with more water. A correlation of about R = 0.50 perhaps?

Comparing "Mu" in the first map to Australia and Indonesia in the second, the lighter blue indicates shallower water and it's not hard to imagine that the original Mu/Terra Australis was partially sunk as a result of expansion and moving away from the Americas, leaving us with a smaller Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica and a plethora of other smaller islands around Indonesia and the rest of the pacific.

Kent wrote:Expansion is coordinate space (in the material sector) corresponds with a retraction in coordinate time (in the cosmic sector), correct? So, if the Earth is expanding what exactly is happening in the cosmic sector? I know there's something I'm missing, particularly how physical matter is represented in the cosmic sector.

The two sectors of the Universe, material and cosmic, are only linked through scalar motion. For the most part, the coordinate systems operate independently.

A material atom is called that because it has more time displacement than spatial displacement, so it has a structure in time and a location in space. In that context, "more time" means less space--an increase in density.

When we look at the Earth as an expanding structure, then we can also consider the cosmic side to be shrinking locations--the increased density of the core of the planet. That is why the core of the planet appears super-dense, rather than hollow.

Daniel, et all, where can I research more on the history of the planet (regarding species)? I come here nearly every day for the past couple of years. There are a lot of fruitful topics discussed and I enjoy following up the leads when presented. To make it a bit easier to zero in on what I'm speaking of: how about starting with the change that occurred in the 13th century? Here, I am asking more about the change in species leadership vs. the expansion event itself...though relationships between the two events would also be very informative.

Some information on the "giants" would be valuable as well. I would have to assume they were decided to be competition; or a failed experiment? What is your opinion of the "dinosaurs" that we're taught? How did they fit into the scheme of things? I assume their size (if we're not being lied to 100% as usual), was related to the abundance of vegetation available at the time? Was a purpose served with their existence; or were they also a failed experiment?

tallpaul wrote:Daniel, et all, where can I research more on the history of the planet (regarding species)?

I would recommend starting with Lloyd Pye and his work on surviving Neanderthals being modern Sasquatch. You can also diagram out the current system of species development through history, remembering that the time scales are wrong and there is a distinct break when the Annuna arrived, creating Cro-magnon man, genetically (something I've been wanting to do, but have not gotten around to it yet).

tallpaul wrote:I come here nearly every day for the past couple of years. There are a lot of fruitful topics discussed and I enjoy following up the leads when presented. To make it a bit easier to zero in on what I'm speaking of: how about starting with the change that occurred in the 13th century? Here, I am asking more about the change in species leadership vs. the expansion event itself...though relationships between the two events would also be very informative.

From what I've been able to piece together, the SMs and LMs had a long-running war (centuries long) that, for the most part, came to an end during that 14th century expansion event--with the LMs "winning." Part of the treaty was that the Annuna were to leave their Ark (the moon) in orbit, to keep life viable here. It took them a couple of centuries to get alternate transportation off this rock, with the final departure of the gods occurring in the early 1500s.

Due to the conflict, a lot of the slaves in the world were left to the human controllers, whom formalized their bureaucracy in 1110 CE. When the gods lost the war, they lost their actual power given by them--but didn't bother to tell any of the slaves, instead tricking them into believing they still had it (kind of like when Congress declared income tax to be illegal, so the IRS made it "voluntary" and didn't tell anyone, here in the USA).

I haven't yet done the correlation work between the attempt to eliminate the Knights Templar and the expansion event, which both occurred in the 14th century, so there might be a correlation there. (Friday, October 13, 1307.) But that was a definite shift in the power structure of this world.

After the departure of the gods (circa 1525 CE), man was in total control, not much changing since then.

tallpaul wrote:Some information on the "giants" would be valuable as well.

See also, Lloyd Pye. Much of the info on giants has been hidden away in "politically incorrect" literature, such as the Apocrypha. (Did you know that Noah was a giant? Or Adam was only 8 years old when he left the Garden?)

tallpaul wrote:What is your opinion of the "dinosaurs" that we're taught? How did they fit into the scheme of things? I assume their size (if we're not being lied to 100% as usual), was related to the abundance of vegetation available at the time? Was a purpose served with their existence; or were they also a failed experiment?

Interesting question that I have not yet come to any conclusions on. There is a lot of strange stuff regarding dinosaurs... for example, if you read about angels in the Apocrypha, you find descriptions of "god" sending angels down from heaven, about the size of a man, flying around with leathery wings, biting people to make them sick. They would only be cured (by a magic staff) if they accepted god as their king. So if you take that data, something about the size of a man, leathery wings, with sharp teeth, flying around--it describes a Pteranodon. For all we know, ENLIL could be something like a T-Rex, as he was described as amphibious with a head of horns.

Now there are other in consistencies, as we are told that "dinosaurs ruled the world," yet they have only found about 3000 skeletal remains--almost half are pteranodons. They give lots of reasons for this small number, such as the conditions to preserve 65 million years, but when you correct the historical time scale to a few thousand years... well... we should be up to our noses in dinosaur bones. And there are fossils of man alongside dinosaur tracks here in the US... and it has now been proven that fossils only take a few days to form under the right conditions--not centuries. So the fossil record is now invalid.

So if you decide to research this, please let me know what you find, as it is an interest of mine.

I would recommend starting with Lloyd Pye and his work on surviving Neanderthals being modern Sasquatch.

I've been through the Pye material; but, it's been a couple of years now I guess. Perhaps time for a refresher.... (Much the same as me reading one of your papers every couple of months, again, and gaining new insights missed the first number of readings...)

Pye knowledge leads one to the understanding of the big lie of the Neanderthals...which, when accepted; changes the entire taught view of "evolution". (Everything you know is wrong; and all that!)
Ask an honest question regarding evolution and note responses you receive from "respected peers" (not every day Joe, but those you think have a bit more common sense than average Joe)....and you get a good example of people not at all understanding that Everything They Know Is Wrong.

From what I've been able to piece together, the SMs and LMs had a long-running war (centuries long) that, for the most part, came to an end during that 14th century expansion event--with the LMs "winning." Part of the treaty was that the Annuna were to leave their Ark (the moon) in orbit, to keep life viable here. It took them a couple of centuries to get alternate transportation off this rock, with the final departure of the gods occurring in the early 1500s.

There is an extreme lack of material on the LM/SM wars. Especially given that it's "modern history." Same goes for the expansion event.

Ask "respected peers" what they think of the moon being an artificial/introduced element into our system and well...Everything They Know... just pops right back up again!

See also, Lloyd Pye. Much of the info on giants has been hidden away in "politically incorrect" literature, such as the Apocrypha. (Did you know that Noah was a giant? Or Adam was only 8 years old when he left the Garden?)

I've read much of the Apocrypha as well; though it's been even longer since I've read that.
Lyrics to Grateful Dead's "Greatest Story Every Told":

Moses come ridin' up on a quasar
His spurs were jingling, the door was ajar
His buckle was silver, his manner was bold
And I asked him to come in out of the cold.

His brain was boiling, his reason was spent
His motto is nothing is borrowed, nothing is lent
He ask me for mercy, I gave him a gun.
He said these things just got to be done.

Abraham and Isaac sitting on a fence
You'd get right to work if you had any sense
You know the one thing we need is a left-hand monkey wrench.

Gideon come up with his eyes on the floor
Said "you ain't got a hinge, you can't close the door."Moses stood up above his six foot and ten
Said "you can't close the door when the wall's caved in."

Ask him for water, he poured me some wine
We finished the bottle and broke into mine.
You get what you come for, ya ready to goWell, it's one in ten thousand that come for the show.[/b]

Abraham and Isaac diggin' on a well
Mama came quick with the water witch spell
Well cool clear water well you can't ever tell.

Abraham and Isaac sitting on a fenceYou'd get right to work if you had any sense
You know the one thing we need is a left-hand monkey wrench.

Well, it's one in ten thousand that come for the show
This line has long been a valuable one to remember for those who know Everything You Know Is Wrong.

Now there are other in consistencies, as we are told that "dinosaurs ruled the world," yet they have only found about 3000 skeletal remains--almost half are pteranodons. They give lots of reasons for this small number, such as the conditions to preserve 65 million years, but when you correct the historical time scale to a few thousand years... well... we should be up to our noses in dinosaur bones. And there are fossils of man alongside dinosaur tracks here in the US... and it has now been proven that fossils only take a few days to form under the right conditions--not centuries. So the fossil record is now invalid.

I have been aware; as noted, the fossil record (and dates and carbon dating etc.) are completely wrong since; well...about since as long as I can remember (at least intuitively). However, the small amount of dinosaur bones was not something I had realized. Thank you for the response, Daniel, that single piece is great food for further thought....

You'd get right to work if you had any sense This has always been a valuable line as well...